Editorials from around Pennsylvania

If it had been solely up to government officials at the time, how much do you think Americans would have learned about the Watergate break-in and the White House coverup that followed? Maybe nothing.

It took a government insider who was willing to talk to reporters as an unnamed "source"—a source who became famously known as "Deep Throat"—to break the case open. The rest is history.

But it's history that never would have been written had those young Washington Post reporters relied on official press releases from government agencies to get answers to their questions. Indeed, reporters covering all levels of government wouldn't have much "news" to report if they relied entirely on official government mouthpieces—at least not much that's very revealing or of great relevance to the public.

And so reporters often rely on "sources" to get the real news. Sometimes those reports reveal sensitive, if not secret, information. The folks who make the disclosures could face consequences if their identity were revealed, including job loss and criminal prosecution.

Which is why reporters promise not to reveal their sources.

It's a promise they should be able to keep, at least when national security isn't at stake or unless disclosing a source would prevent an act of terrorism.

Advertisement

But the law is not on the side of reporters. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled a journalist does not have a First Amendment right to refuse to testify before a grand jury about a confidential source unless there is proof the government is acting in bad faith. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Ever since, judges have struggled to apply the ruling in a way that would shield reporters from disclosing their sources.

It's why reporters have faced threats of prosecution in both criminal and civil cases for refusing to answer questions about a source. In fact, some have gone to jail.

Our interest here is not just in protecting reporters and expanding the reach of whatever media they represent; our concern is the free flow of information and the impact on the public if information is withheld or delivered solely thorough government channels. Honestly, how much government corruption would be uncovered by government officials? Little, if any.

Fortunately, legislation to protect reporters is in the works. The U.S. Senate will soon consider a federal shield law passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in September. Said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., of the bill: "This legislation ensures that the tough investigative journalism that holds government accountable will be able to thrive."

It's the kind of journalism that keeps government honest—at least more honest than if nobody were watching and telling reporters what they saw.

— Bucks County Courier Times

———

SANDUSKY REVIEW SHOULD BE RELEASED IN TIMELY FASHION

Attorney General Kathleen Kane made a promise to Pennsylvania residents when she was campaigning for her current position that she would conduct an internal review of the initial investigation of Jerry Sandusky as conducted by Gov. Tom Corbett's office when he was serving as Attorney General.

Unlike many politicians, she followed through on her promise after her election in 2012.

Kane gave an update on the project yesterday, saying that some aspects of the investigation have been impeded by unforeseen circumstances, such as receiving judicial approval before releasing the report.

It is beyond commendable that Kane told the public the exact reasons behind why the report is taking so long.

Typically, the public is left in the dark until the very end of these investigations.

Kane also said she wants to give people discussed in the report the time to rebut anything said in the report, something not only essential to the fairness of those involved in the report, but also to the public, so they get a full view of what happened.

While all these actions of Kane's are admirable, she must also be careful not to drag the release out until right before the governor's election—while Kane hasn't said she will run for governor, some have said they believe Kane will attempt to unseat Corbett in the next election.

Releasing it without giving the public adequate time to digest the information will not be fair to the people of this state more than it would be an unfair political move.

We are glad we elected a politician that followed through on her promise like Kane has, but it doesn't stop at promises.

— The (Penn State) Daily Collegian

———

THE WEATHER'S FAR-REACHING EFFECTS

Some effects of heavy snow are evident: longer commutes, dangerous driving, school cancellations.

Others aren't as obvious.

It takes money to clear the roads we travel each day. Yes, most government bodies budget for such occurrences, but when we get the amount we have had this winter, it can cause some budget challenges. Roads have to be cleared. Elected officials don't have the luxury of telling us they're out of money and that we'll just have to deal with it.

When children have snow days, their working parents get thrown into a tizzy. While school is part of a child's development, it's also a de facto babysitter. Such unplanned days off cause the work schedules of many in the Midstate to be thrown off. That affects business productivity. Workers either can't go in to work on bad roads or they have to take days off because there is no one else to watch their children.

Think about the toll the weather takes on our cars, with the salt and other ice- and snow-fighting gunk caked on to the sides and bottoms of them.

Think about the car crashes the weather causes, the insurance company costs and the time we have to dedicate on the phone or at a mechanic's getting things fixed.

Think about the time we spend sitting in our cars or driving with a vise grip on the wheel, when our drives to work take twice as long and the stress it all causes.

Or the strain on our backs when we're out shoveling snow. Or the higher amounts we pay to keep our homes heated.

Of course, on these points, you can take the opposite point of view.

Many businesses make money off the weather. This is in no way taking advantage of someone else's misfortune. It's simply providing a service in a time of need.

What stands out the most about Gov. Tom Corbett's $29.4 billion state budget?

No new taxes to eliminate a $1.2 billion deficit? No. A block grant program that would channel $241 million to school districts? No. The renewed push to expanded gambling with keno? Expanded natural gas drilling in state forests and parks? Mr. Corbett's crapshoot on pension reform? No, no and no.

What stands out the most, unfortunately, are the liberal lies about the budget, particularly that education grant program.

State Sen. Vincent Hughes, D-Philadelphia/Montgomery, repeated the lie. So, too, did Democrat gubernatorial wannabe John Hanger. It's the slanderous liberal talking point that has the half-life of nuclear waste.

Then there's that proposal to end the three-year ban on natural gas drilling. The Sierra Club was quick to condemn Corbett's plan "to sacrifice lands." It's a lie by omission. State director Joanne Kilgour forgot to mention that because horizontal drilling from outside sites will be employed, there won't be any surface disturbances on those state lands.

Yes, there's plenty to debate in the governor's new budget. But "politics" should not be cover for lying about it.

— Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

———

POT MAKES US STUPID, BUT 'WAR ON DRUGS' IS A TOTAL FAILURE

"Marijuana arrests are half of all drug arrests and we arrest African-Americans at five times the rate of whites. This is wrong and it must stop."

That is the opinion of John Hanger, a former Department of Environmental Protection Secretary, speaking with seven other candidates for governor in Pittsburgh on Sunday.

Marijuana possession for personal use ought to be decriminalized.

But if we follow Hanger's reasoning out, we run into a troubling question: Do African-Americans use marijuana at a rate five times higher than that of whites?

We haven't seen credible research to definitively answer the question.

But if the arrest statistics cited by Hanger are accurate, we—government, church leaders, schools—are doing a lousy job of persuading people to not use marijuana.

How much money and time are we wasting?

Billions and centuries.

Every segment of society spends money eagerly in the hope of lessening the use of illegal drugs by Americans, especially by young Americans.

We include marijuana use in that campaign even though admittedly, marijuana use by itself is not considered life-threatening, and technically speaking, marijuana use is not considered to be physically addicting.

What marijuana use is, however, especially among younger-than-25 people, is stupidity-manufacturing.

Defenders of marijuana can holler until their lungs rupture, "See? It isn't addictive! It isn't fatal! So you people are just hoo-haahing us!"

Oh, yeah?

We see the inability to concentrate, the indifference to learning, the antipathy toward hard work, the willingness to exist on handouts, welfare, exaggerated disabilities.

We'll concede that a joint a week used by a 45-year-old gainfully employed, taxpaying, productive citizen is pretty harmless as long as driving is not involved.

But the stoned dolts we see on our streets, unemployable and functionally illiterate, are another matter altogether.

So we ought to do something about that.

But what we have done, it seems, is "do anything" because it "might do something."

We have wasted enormous resources in a totally ineffective "war on drugs." Like the French before World War II, we have put our blood and treasure into the supposed security of a Maginot Line of slogans, programs and activities—while our young people, African-Americans especially but far from exclusively, go right around the anti-drug campaign in their pursuit of the Blitzkrieg of Nirvana.

We don't pretend to know what, if anything, will work to wean one-fifth of our society off welfare.